CONSERVATIVE AMERICA

I know that my readership is very limited right now.  Having said that, I would like to thank the handful of people who have come by.  I really appreciate it.  However, due to circumstances beyond my control, I will be taking a few days off. 

I want to provide information that people care about, not just spew my opinions.  I will be working to make this blog better, but I will not be posting any new articles until August 8, 2008.  I will be bringing insightful commentary as well as information you can use.  I hope that you will meet me here then.

Thanks again and I’ll see in August.

It is safe to say that this particular speaker is not a conservative.  However, his ideas rang true to me and at the very least, it will give you something to think about.  Please enjoy the video.

 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

As many of you know, on June 16 the California Supreme Court (judges) struck down that states Defense of Marriage act. This act, supported by 60% of the population in 2000, declared that marriage was an institution creating a union between a man and a woman. By striking down this act, the Court effectively recognized gay marriage as legitimate and legally binding.

Prior to this display of judicial activism, a marriage amendment had been approved for vote in the coming elections. On June 20, same-sex marriage advocates filed a lawsuit to have the amendment removed from the ballot thereby attempting to deny the people the opportunity to support or reject gay marriage. Thankfully, the justices unanimously rejected their request.

This issue brings up two very interesting points for consideration. One, when did judges receive the power to make laws? The role of the judge is to apply the law as it exists. The judicial and legislative branches of government are not one and the same. It is my understanding that the legislative branch, handled by people chosen by the voters, is in place to pass laws that reflect the desires of their constituents. Judges are to take those laws and apply them without infusing the laws with their own opinions of what the law should be.

The second issue of concern is the prospect that one group of people can hinder the ability of the greater population to decide what is acceptable for the states government. The justices in California could have gone the other way. Then what? The people would be denied their freedom to have their say. Is this democracy?

It scares me to think that there are small groups of people who want to take away the privileges (when convenient for them) that we have all enjoyed for these many years. We the people are supposed to have the right to elect leaders that represent us, decide what is socially acceptable, and vote on those issues that matter to us. And the majority has the final say. Not the few.

It would appear that these litigants are either afraid of what the people will say at the polls or think their fellow citizens opinions don’t matter.  The activist judges would seem to be in the same boat.  If you think you are right and that you have adequate support for your cause, then get out of the way and let the people have their vote. If you don’t think you have adequate support, then still get out of the way and let the people have their vote. It is their right, as well as yours, to have a say in matters of government!

Tolerance is defined by MSN Encarta online dictionary as “acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views”. 

Approval is defined by MSN Encarta online dictionary as “1.  good opinion: a favorable opinion or feeling about something  2.  official sanction: formal or official agreement or permission”.

I offer these definitions to you because I have noticed a very troubling trend in the past few years.  It is a trend among certain communities to label other communities as intolerant because they don’t approve of their views.  This is most often seen between the Gay and Lesbian community and the Christian community, but it extends to many other groups as well.  I respect the fact that as consenting, rational adults we all have the freedom to live our lives as we see fit. God gave us ALL freewill.  He didn’t give it to a few or some, but to all.  I also am of the belief that as citizens of the US we all have the freedom to disagree.  Well, in the age of “political correctness” if someone expresses a viewpoint that is unpopular or offensive, they are labeled as intolerant, fanatical, and closed-minded to name a few of the many adjectives used.  Sometimes these words apply, for instance if one group is attacking another.  Usually they do not. 

We should all tolerate the choices and ideas of others.  We shouldn’t belittle anyone or ostracize anyone based on the decisions or lifestyle choices they make.  If I choose to be a bible believing Christian and someone else chooses to be a Buddhist that is ok.  I shouldn’t hold the Buddhist at arms length or hate them for their choice.  They shouldn’t hate or reproach me.  That is tolerance.  However, I shouldn’t compromise my belief by saying the Buddhist is right in his belief and he shouldn’t have to believe I am right.  That would be approval.  I don’t need his approval and he doesn’t need mine.  We do need each other’s tolerance.  See the difference?

I believe homosexuality is a sin and goes against God’s plan.  I don’t believe it is any worse than any other sin such as lying or adultery.  I also don’t believe homosexual people should be treated unfairly or ostracized.  They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not as if they are contagious.  I also believe that I am entitled to my beliefs and as long as I am extending genuine respect to a homosexual person, they should show me the same.  A woman who is lesbian shouldn’t assail me for not approving of her lifestyle and I shouldn’t judge and rebuke her for not approving of mine.  Again, that is tolerance.

Recently there was an attempt to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a pastor to tell his congregation that homosexuality is a sin.  That pastor could be prosecuted because saying that would be considered hate speech.  Isn’t that intolerant?  I think telling that congregation to attack homosexuals is hate speech.  There was also an attempt to pass legislation that would require schools to teach all subjects with no reference to gender.  Rather than “he” or “she” they would have to use “that person” so as to eliminate any distinction between the sexes.  Isn’t that intolerant?  Unless there is something wrong with being a male or a female we shouldn’t negate gender.  Or what about the push to give harsher penalties for crimes labeled as hate crimes?  Should a person who murders someone based on their sexual orientation be subject to stiffer sentencing than someone who commits the same crime on a person because they are angry with them?  Aren’t all violent crimes hate crimes?  Each life is as valuable as the next.  Isn’t the belief that one life is more valuable than another intolerant?

There seems to be this huge movement to make us into a race of people who all share one brain.  While the world we live in is scarier than it has ever been, I think a world where we deny others the right to think independently and to have views that are in opposition to our own is far worse.  I should be able to tell you what I believe without fear of reprisal, and you should be able to tell me what you believe without fear of retaliation.  However, we shouldn’t try to force each other to give our approval to something we don’t approve of.  That is tolerance at its best.

**(Of course, this applies only to situations where thinking, reasoning adults are concerned, not to those that involve the suppression of another such as pedophilia, child abuse, or domestic abuse.  I make note of this distinction because there are people who would like to have these sanctioned as well.  If you don’t believe me, watch the five o’clock news.)

First I would like to say thank you to gaj for taking the time to visit my site and offer his thoughtful opinion.  I would like to take a moment to respond to his comments, but first I need to make something clear.  Those of us who take on labels such as conservative or liberal agree on many issues in our respective groups.  However, not all conservatives or liberals agree on EVERYTHING.  As a species, man is too varied and complicated for us to see each issue, thought, or idea the same.  I would dare to say that is a fact.

Now, when you look at the world around you and take even a cursory glance at the way nature, animals, and the universe at large work you will see that there are absolutes.  The earth, sun, moon and planets move in predictable ways.  Within the animal kingdom, animals relate to each other and their environments in ways that are consistent no matter where they are.  But somehow mankind has come to believe that because we are capable of thought and independent action there are no absolutes for us.

From a scientific standpoint homosexuality makes no sense.  That is not to say that homosexual people are not deserving of love and respect, but only that when it comes to the continuing of the human race, homosexuality is not conducive to our survival.  The advent of sperm banks and in vitro fertilization don’t negate that truth. 

So, it would seem that we have an issue of absolutes.  If homosexuality is natural, then why isn’t it supported by nature.  Each person has the freedom to choose the way they want to live, but because a person says they are homosexual doesn’t mean that society should sanction what is clearly not supported by nature and give it the same level of approval as heterosexual (nature supported) marriage (men and women have screwed that up as well). 

Please stay with me because I am trying to get a lot into a little post.  To answer the question posed by gaj which is “HOW one decides whether a tradition is flawed and oppressive” I would say there is no simple answer to that.  Not every social and political movement is good.  Our opinions are extremely varied and we won’t all agree on anything.  For me that way is the bible. 

And I understand your problem with the bible.  I don’t know if you have read it personally, but I do know that if someone tortures the bible long enough they can make it confess to anything.  People have time and again taken the bible and a verse here and there and used it to support their distorted views.  I prefer to take it as a whole, rather than build a doctrine or cult on an isolated passage or story.  I read it daily and I take it at its word.

Here is the problem, as I see it, with liberalism.  Where does it end?   Liberalism OVER TIME will lead to an “anything goes” society which is good for no one.  I’m about to say something that would seem offensive on the surface, but if you follow me to the end I think you will understand where I’m trying to go. 

No matter how heinous something is, there are those who would say that thing is right.  Pedophiles are an excellent example.  They have networks and organizations that have actually lobbied to give children the right to consent to sex.  These people, despicable as they are, think that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” (see http://www.nambla.org/).

Here’s the problem with liberalism.  If man is free to live his life anyway he wants without any absolute truths (that is things that are absolutely right or wrong), how are we going to deal with pedophiles when they are able to pool their resources and petition the government for equal rights which is going to happen eventually.  I just hope I’m not here to see it.  Are we now trampling their civil rights as they would have us believe?  Most of us would say we are not and they are criminals, but not long ago, homosexuality was viewed in a similar light.  That is to say it was considered aberrant behavior.  Where do we draw the line if there is no line?

Man has absolutes.  Man has free will.  The role of government is to take our opposing views and create a society we can flourish in.  Gaj, hope I answered your particular concerns and I hope you will continue to read and comment here.  Thank you for coming by and giving me my post for today.